…only outlaws will have light bulbs:
The Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act, which unanimously passed South Carolina’s Senate panel, would allow South Carolina manufacturers to continue to sell incandescent bulbs so long as they have “Made in South Carolina” on them and are sold only within the state. Other states have floated the idea, and last year Arizona passed a bill that would have done the same thing, but Governor Jan Brewer (R) vetoed the legislation.
Whether the legislation becomes law remains to be seen, and even if it does become law, lawsuits will likely ensue. Regardless, South Carolina’s efforts demonstrate the will to remove the federal government’s ability to restrict individual choice. If the compact florescent light bulb (CFL) is a better choice, consumers will make that choice without the government’s push.
But it isn’t, and they won’t, so the energy nazis must push.
CFL’s don’t have a longer lifetime at my house. Wish they did.
Apparently South Carolina thinks that by limiting distribution of the bulbs to in-state, they can evade the Commerce Clause justification for federal intervention and supremacy. I suspect they’re wrong about that. The federal government will first demand that they nullify the law, and then they will drag them through a long court battle, the justification for which will be a political judgment that only the federal government can make policy related to global warming. And the same SCOTUS majority that decided Massachusetts vs EPA will agree with this contortion.
While you may be right on the legal outcome under existing precedent and SCOTUS, it may at least continue to enrage the populace in such a way as to encourage them to vote for people who will result in different justices…
Its funny that people clam CFLs are more environmentally friendly. While they might use less energy… when people throw them in landfills (which they do), where exactly does the mercury contained within go?
Stamp them “Space Heater” instead of “Light Bulb” and proceed to sell exactly the same product without fear.
Back in the 90s they made a big fuss and banned the little mercury batteries that had commonly been used in things like cameras for decades because mercury was so dangerous to the environment. But now we have to switch from nice clean incandescent bulbs to obnoxious tubes filled with all sorts of nasty things — including oh-so-dangerous, I’m-sorry-but-you’ll-have-to-just-throw-out-your-expensive-camera “banned” mercury. This time the mercury etc. being in a fragile glass tube instead of a metal shell. So much for the government safeguarding our health.
The federal law does not prohibit “colored lamps” or “bug lamps.” Just get one of these and load it with a yellow bulb and a blue bulb. Problem solved.
Seolyk Says:
“when people throw them in landfills (which they do), where exactly does the mercury contained within go?”
Where I live, we burn them in a waste to energy plant.
I’m actually happy with my CFLs. I’ve noticed the difference in my electric bill, and in a few appliances, the cooler operating temperatures have been helpful. So I’m willing to purchase them.
Then again, it was my Congressman that suggested dropping a CFL on the floor of the House to require the evacuation of the chamber to meet EPA guidelines. I contributed to a local radio stations effort to supply him with CFL’s to keep the then Democratic Congress out of session.
Don’t call them “Space Heater”. Instead call them incubator bulbs. Sell a pack of 20, in a wood box. It should include instructions, on how to put the incubator together. Sell the bulbs for $ 15.00, or $ 20.00.
bbbeard Says:
Apparently South Carolina thinks that by limiting distribution of the bulbs to in-state, they can evade the Commerce Clause justification for federal intervention and supremacy. I suspect they’re wrong about that.
I recall a rather notorious Supreme Court ruling from the 1930s about the Commerce Clause that may relate to this story. A couple minutes on Google and I found it: Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”) decided that, because Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn’s production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.
Under this incredibly stupid precedent, if South Carolina makes and buys their own lightbulbs, they’d be affecting interstate commerce of CFLs which mostly are made in China.
Agree with LarryJ and BBBeard, but I think the difference here is wheat wasn’t banned. It took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, can a simple law ban a light bulb? If it can’t, then can states provide the product for their own citizens? It’s a slightly different flavor than Wickard, but still, “good luck with that”.
Leland, there’s no US Con Amendment to ban “medical mary jane”, and yet…
Right, which is why I say to SC, “good luck with that”.
The 5 milligrams of mercury in a CFL is roughly equivalent to that emitted by a coal plant generating 200 kilowatt-hours of electricity. The bulb will save about 360 kilowatt-hours of power over its lifetime. Since about 40% of US power comes from coal, the average CFL bulb will reduce smokestack mercury emissions by 3.6mg.
So if every CFL was burned after disposal it would generate a net increase in atmospheric mercury. But if a third or more of them are disposed of properly, switching to CFL bulbs containing mercury will reduce overall mercury pollution.
Some utilities subsidize purchase of CFLs; I wonder if any offer an incentive for turning them in when they’re burned out, in order to increase the odds of safe disposal.
Has there been any update on the German claim that CFLs emit toxic fumes, especially when left on for long durations?
The fortunate thing is that we have Mexico, and the smugglers will be glad to bring in any quantity buyers in the U.S. want. Looks like another billion dollar industry for the cartels down there 🙂
Is that why Matula supports illegal immigration? He likes his cartels well funded?
It’s just boiling a frog, little by little.
Adam Smith noted that when a demand exists on one side of a border and a supply is available on the other a smuggling industry will always emerge, no matter what government tries to do to stop it. Given his day job was in customs he spoke from experience.
So governments have the choice of spending a fortune on efforts to stop it, which will always fail, or just accept Smith’s “Law” and make money taxing it.
“Since about 40% of US power comes from coal, the average CFL bulb will reduce smokestack mercury emissions by 3.6mg. ”
dude different compounds of the chemical hg
‘
My CFL bulbs don’t seem to last any longer than the incandescent bulbs. I use them where they run a lot or where I need less heat.